I guess it was easy to answer after all… I asked it because i tought god didn’t love sin and consequently, its origin in humanity.

If something need god (his love for instance) to be good, then sinners have no chance of becoming good unless god start to love them in the first place. Since god is good and doesn’t love evil and sin, there is no hope in god because he will not start to love evil. If there is no hope in god, then it’s pointless to waste time on him.

If god created things to be good independently from him, then we don’t need god to be good. If we don’t need god to be good, we just don’t need him (for moral and ethical purpose at least).

” If something is moral is it moral because God is moral, or is it moral because God commands it ” ?

So we have to see how God became moral.

Simply, stating that Gods nature is good doesn’t seem to make sense.
-
(A) If what is good is inherent (ie) noble morals are a universal fixed structure, this makes God the middle man. Because noble morals are fixed and unchanging, therefor God is just the mouthpiece of morals - he is subject to an already existing moral law.

(B) But if noble morals exist because God made them (ie) if God decided what is noble or abhorrent, his rules are arbitrary. If he has the power to make them he has the power to change them.
-
Then a christian might try to make a third argument, they might state: “God = Good” they will also say that god is eternal and doesn’t change his standards.

But stating that “Gods nature is good” doesn’t make sense it needs to be accounted for, we need to see how it is good, is it inherent or arbitrary ?

I was reading your posts for quite some time and i finally decided to write. It's been quite some time since i wrote in english so i'm sorry if i'm not making myself clear or else.

I know that you all think that TheChampion is a lost case (and he probably thinks the same about you) but still, i have to give it a shot.

The question i want to ask you come from Plato's work. It's not exacly the same question (because christians believe only in one god) but i would like to have an answer from a christian perspective.

The dilemma is:"is something good because god loves it, or do god loves it because it is good?"

I came across this by reading Plato's euthyphro and at

Nic

When the mind attempts to study the consensus conceptual overlay by factoring in the influence of an imaginary deity, any conclusion that it can come up with is meaningless.
Trying to determine the relationship of a god that doesn’t exist to the mind’s label “morals” can result only in more confusion.
One might as well try to study how fairies influence global warming in Shangra-La.